Frick v. Morford

California Supreme Court Feb 2, 1891 No. No. 13659Published

Before: Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a writ of mandate to compel a new assessment because they failed to exhaust their administrative remedy of appealing the original assessment to the city council as required by statute. The failure to appeal rendered the original assessment conclusive, precluding the plaintiffs from seeking judicial correction.

Issues

Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a writ of mandate to compel a new assessment after failing to appeal the original assessment to the city council.
Whether an assessment including unauthorized work is void or merely subject to correction via administrative appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If the assessment was a valid one, the superintendent of streets cannot be required to make another, and unless facts showing that it was not valid were clearly set forth in their application, the court was justified in refusing to grant the writ.”

“It follows that, inasmuch as the plaintiffs did not appeal from the act of the superintendent of streets in making the original assessment, they are concluded thereby, and are not entitled to have it corrected in any other mode.”

Synopsis

Street Assessment — Validity — New Assessment.—If a street assessment is valid, the superintendent of streets cannot he required to make another assessment.

Id. — Mandamus — Pleading — Application. — An application by contractors for street work for a mandamus to compel the superintendent of streets to make a new assessment for the work, which alleges that payment of the previous assessment was refused because of excess of work, must clearly set forth facts showing that the previous assessment was void, else the writ should be refused.

Id. — Excess of Street Work—Erroneous Plans and Specifications — Work Outside of Limits. —Street work done according to the plans and specifications in the office of the city surveyor, which call for work outside of the limits authorized by'the resolution of intention, is done without authority as to the work outside of those limits, and the contractors are not entitled to an assessment for the excess.

Id. —Location of Lot Assessed. —If the lot assessed wholly fronts upon the work done in excess of authority, it cannot he held liable for any assessment; hut if it fronts in whole or in part upon work authorized by the resolution of intention, the assessment against it will not necessarily be rendered void by the fact that the entire assessment purports to make a charge upon lots not within the limits fixed by the resolution of intention.

Id. — Segregation of Excess. — An excess of work done outside of the limits fixed by the resolution of intention will not invalidate an assessment against lots within those limits for work which was authorized by the resolution, if the cost of the work was estimated by the linear foot, so that the cost of the excess can be easily segregated from the cost of the remainder.

Id. — Excess of Work within Proper Limits — Appeal to City Council. — An assessment for street work embracing only the frontage covered by the resolution of intention, but including the expense of an excess of work done in accordance with the specifications, but not authorized by the resolution, may be corrected by appeal to the city council, and the failure to take such appeal is conclusive upon the owner as well as the contractor.

Id.—Lot Improperly Assessed — Appeal by Contractor.—If a lot improperly assessed is partly within and partly without the limits of the work authorized by the resolution of intention, it is the duty of the contractor, under section 11 of the act of March 8, 1885, to appeal to the city council to have the assessment corrected, and upon his failure to take such appeal, he is concluded, and cannot have the assessment corrected in any other mode.

Id. — Appeal by Owner. — An illegal assessment creates no lien upon the land assessed, and the owner thereof is not a person “aggrieved,” and is not required to appeal to the city council.

Harrison, J. The plaintiffs applied to the superior court of Los Angeles County for a writ of mandate to the superintendent of streets of the city of Los Angeles, directing him to make an assessment for certain work done by them in laying a sewer in Seventh Street, under a contract "with the city authorities. In their application they aver that they entered into a contract with the superintendent of streets, by which they agreed to lay [578]the sewer “in accordance with plans and specifications therefor on file in the office of the city surveyor, . . . . but said plans and specifications were'faulty and erroneous in this: that about eight feet of sewer more were required by said plans and specifications to be laid, and were laid by affiants, than was authorized by the resolution of intention”; that they had performed their work to the satisfaction of the superintendent of streets, and that he accepted the same and made an assessment therefor, “and in said assessment included the cost and incidental expenses of said unauthorized eight feet”; that they brought an action to recover the amount of a portion of the assessment against one H. L. Williams, who had refused to pay the same, “because of said.excess of work,” and that they had dismissed the said action.

The defendant demurred to the application, and his demurrer having been sustained, the plaintiff declined to amend, and appealed to this court from the order denying the writ. The plaintiffs do not in their application aver in terms that the assessment that had been issued was void, nor can we say from the facts averred by them that it was void. Neither do they aver that the court in which they brought an action upon it decided that it was void; but they say that they dismissed their action against Williams, upon “ becoming convinced from the rulings of the honorable court that judgment could not be recovered by them.”

If the assessment was a valid one, the superintendent of streets cannot be required to make another, and unless facts showing that it was not valid were clearly set forth in their application, the court was justified in refusing to grant the writ.

1. The plaintiffs do not show very clearly in their application wherein the plans and specifications which were on file in the office of the city surveyor “required about eight feet of sewer more to be laid” than was authorized by the resolution of intention, but we under[579]

Frick v. Morford

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief